🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <831720509.25896.0@thokk.demon.co.uk>
           Malcolm@demon.net "Malcolm Muir" wrote:

>Given its chequered history and many 'authors', the whole thing should
>be rewritten. Snews is a classic for what happens when many authors
>contribute in an unstructured way to coding.

Actually, Malcolm, I'm most impressed with its consistency of style
despite those problems.  I've worked on projects with a "team style"
document which were less consistent.  Either the authors have been
remarkable disciplined or you've done a hell of a good job pulling it
together...

>More likely accept its time has come and replace it with a new model.
>(and a whole new set of bugs)

That is something which does happen, indeed.  There are some of my
programs which I wrote years ago which are an absolute mess (as in I
change one line and it takes several days to get it working again) and
are in desparate need of a rewrite.  Snews certainly isn't that bad yet.

One thing - whatever replaces it needs to also have the source, so some
of us can fix bugs etc. in our own versions (John Washington and myself,
at least, and I'm certain there are other people here who do the same).
For an example, look at my message-id (I wanted the date and time in
there in a readable format, and the message sequence number - the
user-id was just because it was there <g>)...

.-------------------------------.-------------------------------------.
|    chris@keris.demon.co.uk    |  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  |
`-------------------------------^-------------------------------------'